medical_devices_and_apparatus
California fires leave 31 dead, a vast landscape charred, and a sky full of soot.
The reach of the blazes is spreading dramatically further by the day, as thick plumes of smoke blow through population centers across the Bay Area.
SONOMA, Calif. — Some of the worst wildfires ever to tear through California have killed 31 people and torched a vast area of the state’s north this week, but the reach of the blazes is spreading dramatically further by the day, as thick plumes of smoke blow through population centers across the Bay Area.
Everything now smells burnt. Hills and buildings are covered in a haze. Residents nowhere near the front lines of the fires now venture out wearing air masks. On a hillside above the Russian River, a broad and menacing band of fire is turning a blue sky into a gray miasma of soot.
Air-quality, based on levels of tiny particles that can flow deep into the lungs, is rated “unhealthy” across much of Northern California, and smoke has traveled as far as Fresno, more than 200 miles to the south. The effects are many: schoolchildren are being kept inside during recess, the Oakland Raiders canceled their outdoor practice on Thursday to prevent players from breathing in the bad air, and doctors are reporting an increase in visits and calls from people with lung and heart trouble.
It is the 31 deaths, however, a toll that surpasses the official number of people killed by the single deadliest wildfire in state history, that has horrified Californians. The Griffith Park fire of 1933, in Los Angeles, killed 29 people despite burning a mere 47 acres, according to officials.
Late Thursday, the authorities said they had identified 10 of 17 people who were killed in Sonoma County. Most were in their 70s and 80s, and most were found in houses. One was found next to a vehicle.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
California’s Wildfires: Why Have They Been So Destructive? OCT. 11, 2017
California Wildfires Death Toll Rises to 29 as Vast Region Is Scorched OCT. 11, 2017
‘Everything Was Incinerated’: Scenes From One Community Wrecked by the Santa Rosa Fire OCT. 10, 2017
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“We have found bodies that were nothing more than ash and bones,” said Robert Giordano, the Sonoma County sheriff. In some cases, he said, the only way to identify the victims was by the serial numbers stamped on artificial joints and other medical devices that were in their bodies.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
William Roman, 13, wore a face mask as he watered plants in Santa Rosa. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Because the fires have sent so many residents scrambling for safety, separating them from relatives, the authorities have received reports of 900 missing people and have deployed 30 detectives to track them down. Officials said they had confirmed the locations and safety of 437 people and were still looking for the other 463.
If they cannot find them by phone or online, they send search and rescue teams with cadaver dogs to the homes — if the homes are accessible, which in many cases, they still are not.
“It’s going to be a slow process,” Sheriff Giordano said.
Statewide, there were 21 major fires still burning on Thursday, which had consumed more than 191,000 acres since the outbreak began on Sunday night, said Ken Pimlott, the chief of Cal Fire, the state firefighting agency. The number of separate fires rises and falls often, as new blazes flare up and old ones merge, but the size of the devastated area has grown steadily.
Underscoring the vast scale of the crisis, a line of fire that appeared to span at least two miles descended into Alexander Valley, a wine grape growing region in Geyserville along the Russian River. Thick white columns of smoke poured from the forested hillside above the vineyards as the fire crept down into the valley.
Health officials were particularly focused on young children, who are at a higher risk than adults from dirty air. They breathe faster and take in more air than adults because they run around more. They also have smaller airways, so irritation in those narrower pipes is more prone to cause breathing trouble.
“People with pre-existing heart and lung disease, the elderly and young children should stay in the house with the windows closed,” said Dr. John Balmes, an expert on the respiratory effects of air pollutants at the University of California, in both Berkeley and San Francisco.
Continue reading the main story
From Our Advertisers
Photo
Firefighters in Sonoma looked at a wall of smoke rising from the Norrbom Fire burning across the valley. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Certain masks can filter out fine particles, but surgical masks are useless, and so are the ones used to protect against big particles. The masks that work are a type called N95, available in many hardware stores.
Nancy Barkley, 40, a nurse from Indiana who is on a 13-week assignment unrelated to the fire emergency, drove dozens of miles from Santa Rosa to find face masks.
“I kept on driving because they were out everywhere,” she said, pulling down her surgical mask to talk.
Northern California is accustomed to wildfires and occasional wafts of smoke that drift with the winds. But nothing like this.
“I’ve lived here 50 years — I’ve never seen it this bad,” said Paul Ackerley, a 90-year-old World War II veteran.
Mr. Ackerley was walking through his neighborhood Wednesday when a woman stopped her car and offered him a mask.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Smoke hung in the air in Sonoma’s town square on Thursday. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
People closest to the fires have the greatest risk of health problems. There, heavy smoke can include toxic substances emitted when man-made materials burn. Plastics can release hydrochloric acid and cyanide.
“Smoke inhalation can kill you,” Dr. Balmes said. “There’s no doubt about that, but it’s all dose-related. If you breathe in a lot of smoke from any fire, especially a fire in a building with man-made materials that can emit these toxins, you basically have chemical burns of the airway.
“Just like your skin can slough off when it’s burned, the airway lining can slough off. It can be life-threatening. People have to be intubated and put on a ventilator,” he said.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
California Today
The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Privacy Policy Opt out or contact us anytime
Hospitals near the worst fires are struggling as they continue to take in patients.
At Santa Rosa Memorial, the city’s largest hospital, technicians installed a large air filtration system to clear smoky air from the hospital lobby. The hospital has handled 130 fire-related cases since Sunday night, when the fires began. Bus drivers in the city have been issued face masks.
“We’ve seen patients who have chronic lung disease, like emphysema, generally older patients, which is really exacerbated by the smoke,” said Dr. Chad Krilich, chief medical officer for St. Joseph Health, which includes Santa Rosa Memorial, another hospital and other facilities in Sonoma County.
“For some of them, it’s really life-threatening,” he said, adding that patients even without asthma or other lung problems are coming in with breathing trouble. Most are being treated in the emergency rooms, which would normally see 105 to 135 patients a day, but are now seeing 150 to 180 a day.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Capt. John Clays lit a backfire on Wednesday in Sonoma County. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Their inpatient count rose at first, but they have been transferring patients elsewhere, “because we are at risk of evacuation, too,” Dr. Krilich said, adding, “We know at least 108 of our employees are homeless, and 46 others have had to evacuate.”
Steve Huddleston, vice president for public affairs of NorthBay Healthcare, said the network has two small hospitals and three outpatient clinics in Solano County, east of the fires. One of its outpatient clinics is less than a mile from the fire line, but still operating.
In the emergency rooms and the clinics, he said, “we’re seeing 100 patients a day with respiratory distress and asthmatic attacks from the smoke.”
Many have chronic lung disease or asthma, but not all.
“All of our beds are full, and they have been for two days,” Mr. Huddleston said.
He added: “We’re on the edge of feeling overwhelmed. The staffing is becoming challenging. We’ve had half a dozen of our physicians or staff members lose their homes in the fires. We have staff members who live in the evacuation zones, and they’re trying to get their belongings and their loved ones out of there.”
In areas directly affected by the fires, many schools have canceled classes for the week, leaving parents scrambling.
On Thursday, William Roman, 13, a middle-school student, was helping his grandfather in a landscaping job at a strip mall in Santa Rosa, watering plants — with a face mask on.
“If we’re going to play outside we need to wear a face mask — that’s what my mother says,” William said.
Depending on the winds, the smoke can range from heavy to none. In parts of Santa Rosa on Thursday, there was something resembling a blue sky. Yet even when the smoke was not visible, the outdoors smelled like a fireplace.
Thomas Fuller reported from Sonoma, Calif., and Denise Grady and Richard Pérez-Peña from New York. Matt Stevens contributed reporting from New York.
Keep reading...Show less
Puerto Rico’s slow-motion medical disaster.
Hurricane Maria left a ruined island and 16 Puerto Rico residents dead. But public health experts worry that figure could climb higher in the coming weeks, as many on the island fail to get medicines or treatment they need for chronic diseases.
Hurricane Maria left a ruined island and 16 Puerto Rico residents dead. But public health experts worry that figure could climb higher in the coming weeks, as many on the island fail to get medicines or treatment they need for chronic diseases. Roads are blocked, supplies are stuck at the ports, and only 11 of Puerto Rico’s 69 hospitals are open. Doctors at one children’s hospital were forced to discharge 40 patients this week when their generator ran out of diesel fuel.
But the immediate need for treatment is only the beginning of the island's public health challenges. With the island’s entire power grid knocked out, Puerto Rico’s massive pharmaceutical manufacturing industry—which provides 30 percent of the island’s gross domestic product and 90,000 jobs—has been shut down. FDA administrator Scott Gottlieb announced this week that his agency is trying to shift production to the mainland US to prevent shortages of cancer drugs, immunosuppressants for transplant patients, and medical devices for diabetes patients. Bringing Puerto Rico back online will make a big difference for people living both on—and off—the island.
In the short term, energy is essential to keeping patients alive. Medicines like insulin to treat diabetes or tetanus vaccines need to be kept cool. That means either in a refrigerator at 45 degrees Fahrenheit (for seasonal flu or tetanus vaccines) or at room temperature, which is about 72 degrees (for insulin). But without air conditioning, Puerto Rico’s tropical climate is hitting the upper 80s this week. “Refrigeration and cold storage are really big issues, and will be for the forseeable future,” says one former federal emergency response official who asked not to be identified.
The patients most affected by the failing cold chain will be those with chronic conditions. One-fifth of Puerto Rico's population has some kind of disability, including half of those above age 65. Its 3.5 million residents have the highest prevalence of diabetes in the United States—nearly 13 percent compared to 8.7 percent on the US mainland. That helps make Puerto Rico the most vulnerable US territory to a natural disaster like Hurricane Maria, according to a recent study by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers .
Federal health officials say they are already seeing patients come into emergency clinics with chronic disease related problems. “People with the most dire need are dialysis patients,” says Lt. Cmdr. Garrett Martin-Yeboah of the US Public Health Service and the national clinical pharmacist to the Department of Health and Human Service’s assistant secretary for emergency preparedness and response. “They are on a good number of prescription medications. Because of the volume of medications and tenuousness of their condition, those are some of the patients we are concerned about.”
The immediate refrigeration problem is solvable. Martin-Yeboah said a squad of federal emergency care doctors who were stationed on the island before Maria struck brought battery-powered mini-fridges that can run four days without power. They also brought their own diesel generators—though a week after the storm left, there is still not enough fuel to run them. “There are some challenges in Puerto Rico with fuel and things like that,” says Martin-Yeboah, who coordinates medicines and supplies for HHS doctors. “We’ve had to go to the airport to retrieve medical supplies,” she says. “Our suppliers can get them to Puerto Rico, but can’t get it to the site.”
The Navy hospital ship Comfort, which was finally dispatched this week, may also help in the short-term, especially for trauma patients. The converted supertanker will bring 1,000 beds, 12 operating rooms, a CAT-scan, and radiology capabilities to Puerto Rico. Meanwhie, emergency responders are using ham radios to reach some communities and even considering air-dropping medicines into villages, according to Nicolette Louissaint, executive director of Healthcare Ready, a group that coordinates post-disaster medical supply chain between public agencies and private suppliers such as pharmacies and drug manufacturers.
“The most important part is how we support the patients,” Louissant says. “These disaster responses are massive logistical operations. We have to do unusual things. Folks are looking at how you can get up to the mountains, and what solutions to move medicines to people but also people to medicines.”
Louissant noted that less than 10 percent of the island’s pharmacies were open as of Wednesday. Overall, there is no panic over medicines, according to health officials working in Puerto Rico. But they are prepared for the situation to worsen if conditions don’t improve quickly. Chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease and diabetes are often not counted in the final toll of natural disasters like Hurricane Maria. “These people end up dying from things that are preventable under ordinary circumstances,” said the former federal emergency official. “That’s what is going to start happening.”
But long-term, the effects of Puerto Rico's collapse may ripple far beyond the island. Twelve of the top 20 global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have manufacturing facilities on the island, according to the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company. As a result, Puerto Rico manufactures seven of the top 10 drugs sold globally including AstraZeneca's cholesterol treatment Crestor, Abbvie arthritis drug Humira, and Johnson & Johnson-owned HIV drug Prezista, USA Today reported. Those three companies have said supplies of their drugs are in good shape and drugmakers are working to get production up and running. Still, Puerto Rico officials say it may be months before the island's power grid is fixed.
Keep reading...Show less
Puerto Ricans still waiting for aid a week after Maria's devastation.
A week after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, millions of the U.S. commonwealth's residents are struggling to survive without basic necessities.
(CNN)A week after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, millions of the US commonwealth's residents are struggling to survive without basic necessities.
In the town of Utuado, Lydia Rivera has started to ration crackers and drink rain water to keep her two grandchildren alive.
"No water, no food," Rivera told CNN. "It's nobody's fault. It's the weather. You have to go on."
The storm hit the US territory last week, killing at least 16 people and knocking down power, communication and water grids across the island. But the recovery efforts there have been markedly different from those in Texas and Florida after recent hurricanes.
Lydia Rivera is rationing crackers to keep feeding her grandchildren.
In coastal communities, homes were damaged by the sea surge and hundreds of palm trees were stripped of fronds. In mountain towns, families had to be evacuated because homes were threatened by mudslides.
On the beach, Maria brought waves.
In the mountains, Maria brought mud.#PuertoRicoNeedsHelpNow pic.twitter.com/Ifn44oujz1
— Bill Weir (@BillWeirCNN) September 26, 2017
Lives are at stake
With nearly all 1.6 million electricity customers in Puerto Rico without power, the lack of fuel is a key problem across the island.
People are relying on generators to keep appliances such as air conditioners, medical devices and refrigerators running.
Many hospitals are struggling to treat patients and scores of people are lining up with gas cans for hours.
Twelve children hospitalized at the San Jorge Children's Hospital in San Juan depend on ventilators to survive, but the hospital has only a limited amount of fuel for generators, said Domingo Cruz Vivaldi, the hospital's executive director.
The hospital is the largest private children's medical center in the Caribbean. When the hospital ran out of diesel Monday, the ventilators had to run on batteries for hours until another hospital offered them fuel.
"We were very thankful for that. We were very lucky," he said.
The hospital is working to secure more gas, Cruz Vivaldi said, because that diesel will only last for about two days.
At another hospital in San Juan, two people died in an intensive care unit after it ran out of diesel, officials said.
'People are starting to get desperate'
Before sunrise every day, dozens of people hauling multiple red plastic gas cans begin lining up at gas stations. They need fuel to start up their cars in case of an emergency or to keep generators running at home.
Some wait for up to six hours armed with lawn chairs and umbrellas.
"If the gasoline arrives it will fix our problems. Because people are starting to get desperate," said Utuado's Mayor Ernesto Irizarry.
At least 60 people have been arrested for violating the overnight curfew ordered by Gov. Ricardo Rosello to keep the island safe.
Thirty-six people have also been arrested for looting and theft in Humacao, Caguas, San Juan and Bayamon, Puerto Rico Police Superintendent Michelle Hernandez told CNN.
People waiting line to buy gas in Rio Hondo, Bayamon, Puerto Rico.
Federal relief efforts
With supplies running out, many of the island's residents are collecting water from mountain streams.
Harry Torres said the water is all they have for cleaning and drinking until help comes. They've heard on the radio that FEMA trucks loaded with supplies have arrived on the island.
"We haven't seen any," Torres told CNN.
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands have seen fewer personnel since Hurricane Maria hit than Texas and Florida during the recent hurricanes.
In a tweet on Monday, FEMA said more than 10,000 federal staff were on the ground in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands assisting search and rescue and recovery efforts.
President Donald Trump has announced he will visit Puerto Rico on October 3, nearly two weeks after Maria struck the US commonwealth. The President inspected damage and rescue efforts in Texas and Florida in the immediate aftermath of the recent hurricanes.
Defending the federal response in Puerto Rico as "anything but slow" Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration will be able to determine appropriate funds "once we have a greater insight into the full assessment of damage."
On Tuesday, Trump said the recovery was more difficult in Puerto Rico because of its geography. FEMA administrator Brock Long added that the limited operations at Puerto Rico's international airport were making it difficult to move resources into the area.
CNN's Bill Weir, Brian Vitagliano, Mallory Simon, Eric Levenson contributed to this report.
Keep reading...Show less
Empty seats: Trump’s top science jobs vacant; others tied to industry.
An analysis by Reveal found that of Trump’s 12 nominees and appointees, six have worked for the industries they would regulate or award contracts to.
Seven months into his term, President Donald Trump hasn’t picked anyone to fill 32 of 44 top federal science positions, and half of those he has nominated have significant ties to the industries they would regulate.
Dozens of federal agencies – overseeing issues from the census to endangered species and the nation’s space program – remain without leaders to advise the White House and cabinet secretaries on science, engineering, health and technology. These officials also are responsible for overseeing the work of agency scientists and billions of dollars in spending on research, education and equipment.
The industry-friendly backgrounds and lack of science credentials of some of Trump’s choices, and the extremely slow pace of filling the rest of the vacancies, have raised questions about how the administration is handling the nation’s highest-ranking science positions. Typically, academics, longtime agency staffers or other experts in their fields fill these leadership posts.
An analysis by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting found that of Trump’s 12 nominees and appointees, six have worked for the industries they would regulate or award federal contracts to. Two candidates – including Trump’s former national campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, the president’s choice as the Department of Agriculture’s top scientist – have no scientific background.
So far, only two of Trump’s nominees for top science positions at federal agencies have been confirmed by the Senate. Eight others are awaiting a vote. The eventual nominees for all 32 vacant posts would require confirmation, which could drag on for months.
“Staff can only go so far before they hit these empty seats,” said Cristin Dorgelo, who was chief of staff in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama. “I’m most concerned about response to emerging situations, because in those moments, leaders are key, not just for setting the direction of the agencies, but raising up the needs, concerns and gaps to the White House and Congress for attention, action and investment.”
Notable vacancies
No one has been named to permanently fill the four top science posts at the Department of the Interior, including the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for protecting endangered species and managing about 150 million acres of public refuges and wetlands inhabited by more than 2,000 species of birds, mammals, fish and other creatures.
Also empty: top roles at NASA, which manages key climate and earth science data-gathering projects, as well as the space program, and three high-ranking science posts at the Department of Commerce, including a leader for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees fisheries management, climate and ocean research and more.
The Census Bureau, also part of the Commerce Department, has been leaderless since June, when its director resigned after a confrontation with Congress over the budget for the 2020 U.S. census. Census data are critical for guiding how and where the federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on health, economic development, education and other services and determining how many seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives.
3 top science leaders confirmed under Obama still hold the posts
The Trump administration also has yet to nominate anyone to fill two undersecretary roles at the USDA that oversee the safety and quality of the nation’s food supply.
Dorgelo said she is especially concerned that vacancies at these key agencies and others, including the Health and Human Services and Defense departments, could hamper the government’s response to major crises, such as the Ebola outbreak.
When the Ebola virus showed up in the United States in 2014, input from these leaders helped the White House “identify immediate technology needs of health workers,” she said. “That led to rapid outreach to the private sector to ask for better innovations, such as the suits those workers would wear. There was a very quick response, from gap identification to creating solutions.”
Critics say the vacancies are evidence of Trump’s lack of interest in incorporating science into policy.
“This administration seems to be a bit different from everything I hear, in that they are much less interested in what the career professionals can contribute, and certainly much less interested in the underlying science that informs policy,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of The Center for Science and Democracy at the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists.
Trump’s cabinet secretaries “are coming in with a mandate to do something that is sometimes in opposition to the agencies they’ve been tasked to lead – to effectively hand the agency over to private interests,” he said. “So they’re not looking for science advice, because they’ve already been told what to do.”
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
No scientific expertise
Trump has named two people with no science background to science posts. Both are awaiting final confirmation by the Senate.
David Wright was nominated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the five-person board responsible for regulating the nuclear power industry and ensuring the safety of nuclear facilities. He studied political science and communications in the mid-1970s and worked for 25 years in public relations, advertising and events planning before serving on South Carolina’s public utility commission.
Clovis, the administration’s nominee for the USDA undersecretary for research, education and economics, would oversee about $2 billion in annual funding for scientific research and about another $1 billion for education.
Clovis is a former professor of business administration at Iowa’s Morningside College. But prior to becoming co-chairman of Trump’s national campaign, he was better known as a right-wing political activist who – via his Sioux City talk radio show – promoted fringe conspiracy theories, including “birtherism,” which falsely claimed that Obama was born in Kenya.
Clovis also has proclaimed himself a skeptic on climate change. At the USDA, he would oversee billions of dollars of federally funded science and education on safeguarding the food supply amid rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns.
44 vacant top science leadership positions; 42 require Senate confirmation
Critics say the lack of deep science backgrounds for some candidates means there would be few people in authority capable of informing politicians about an array of complex issues.
“Some positions, such as the undersecretary for research at the Department of Agriculture, benefit very much from robust science backgrounds. Ideally, you get a person who has a mix of both scientific background and experience and policy background,” Dorgelo said. “It’s not possible to hire people with that mix for all positions, but it’s important to hires in key positions, such as that one at the USDA.”
If political appointees have scientific expertise, “they’re able to have a seat at the political policymaking table to make sure science has a voice,” she said.
So far, two of the administration’s top science positions have been filled by experts: Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, Georgia’s public health commissioner, was appointed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Tony Tooke, a forester who has worked for the U.S. Forest Service since he was 18, was named its new chief.
Industry ties
Six of the Trump administration’s science nominees have close relationships with the industries they will be dealing with on behalf of the public. Their scientific experience varies.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, confirmed in May as head of the Food and Drug Administration, has worked extensively as a consultant and investor to pharmaceutical and medical firms. The FDA is the agency that reviews and approves new drugs and medical devices.
Gottlieb has served on an advisory board for pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and as a venture partner with New Enterprise Associates, a venture capital firm that appears to have invested in dozens of biotech, pharmaceutical and medical equipment startups. He also served as an FDA deputy commissioner under President George W. Bush.
At the Energy Department, Paul Dabbar will coordinate about $5 billion in research and development if he is confirmed as undersecretary for science. He has an undergraduate degree in marine engineering and served as an officer on a nuclear submarine. But for the past 21 years, he has focused on investment banking, working on multibillion-dollar merger and acquisition deals between energy firms as a managing director at JPMorganChase & Co. Dabbar currently sits on the Energy Department’s Environmental Management Advisory Board.
10 people nominated by Trump to top science positions; 2 confirmed by Senate so far
If confirmed as assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Brett Giroir will be the top public health adviser to Secretary Tom Price and be responsible for oversight of diverse public health issues, from infectious diseases and vaccinations to family planning and reproductive services.
Giroir would oversee federal protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects in clinical trials – such as those conducted by Houston-based biopharmaceutical firm ViraCyte, where he was named CEO in 2016. He also would direct 6,700 commissioned officers in the U.S. Public Health Service, a medical corps that responds to humanitarian crises, natural disasters such as hurricanes and industrial accidents in the U.S. and overseas.
Giroir’s national profile rose in 2014, when then-Texas Gov. and current Energy Secretary Rick Perry tapped him to lead the state’s Ebola response. At the time, Giroir was the CEO of the Health Science Center at Texas A&M; University, spearheading public-private partnerships to tackle emerging public health threats, from chemical biowarfare to infectious pandemics. Giroir directed the science office at the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 2004 to 2008.
Ellen Lord, confirmed Aug. 1 as the Defense Department’s undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, worked for more than three decades at Textron Systems, a Fortune 500 Defense Department contractor. She joined the company as a chemist in 1984, rising through the firm’s executive ranks to become president and CEO in 2012.
The undersecretary historically directs the Pentagon on how and where to spend its billions of dollars for research, development, energy and equipment. But initially, Lord will oversee a Congress-mandated split of its responsibilities into two offices. Reports suggest she will seek reappointment to the new acquisitions role that results.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, has endorsed both of the Trump administration’s nominees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David Wright, an energy industry consultant, has held several positions aligned with the nuclear power industry. These include chairman of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition, a group of utility commissioners and industries that has advocated for a nuclear waste storage site at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, and president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
The other commission nominee, Annie Caputo, was an executive assistant and legislative affairs manager for Exelon Corp., the nation’s largest utility and largest operator of nuclear power plants, from 1998 to 2005. She worked for a year as an engineer with Commonwealth Edison after earning an undergraduate degree in nuclear engineering in 1996. She currently is a policy aide for House and Senate Republicans on committees overseeing the industry.
Roots in conservative think tanks
Three of Trump’s science nominees have worked with the nation’s leading conservative think tanks.
Gottlieb was a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute when he was confirmed as head of the FDA. The institute advocates for free enterprise and limited government authority. One of its campaigns is to overturn FDA regulations on electronic cigarettes.
Economist Stephen Parente, nominated as assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, would manage Medicare and some elements of the Affordable Care Act if confirmed. He has written critical reviews of the act for the right-leaning think tank American Action Forum, including analyses of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” replacement proposal. Parente is a health economist at the University of Minnesota, where he is the Minnesota insurance industry chair of health finance.
2 science leaders appointed by Cabinet secretaries
Kevin Hassett, nominated to lead the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, was a professor at Columbia University in New York and an economic adviser for the Federal Reserve Board in the 1990s. He advised the Republican presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. He is currently the director of research for domestic policy for the American Enterprise Institute, an outspoken opponent of federal policies to combat climate change. Hassett, however, has endorsed carbon taxes as a more effective incentive to reduce greenhouse gas pollution than cap and trade.
Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists said he is worried but not surprised that there are so many science vacancies and that many of the nominees have ties to the industries they would oversee.
“There seems to be very little interest in utilizing those resources or advisory bodies. Even the external advisory bodies have really ground to a halt,” he said. “The philosophy of this administration is that the most important thing we can do is deregulate.”
This story was edited by Marla Cone and Amy Pyle and copy edited by Nadia Wynter and Nikki Frick.
Emily Gertz can be reached at ejgertz@emilygertz.com. Follow her on Twitter: @ejgertz.
Keep reading...Show less
A grim budget day for US science: Analysis and reaction to Trump's plan.
We're detailing the numbers and what people think of them.
President Donald J. Trump
Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY SA)
A grim budget day for U.S. science: analysis and reaction to Trump's plan
By Science News StaffMar. 16, 2017 , 5:00 PM
President Donald Trump rolled out his first budget request to Congress today. It is for the 2018 fiscal year that begins on 1 October. It calls for deep cuts to some federal science agencies (read our initial coverage to get some of the numbers), and is likely to draw fierce opposition from the scientific community and many lawmakers in Congress.
ScienceInsider is providing analysis and reaction to the budget all day.
Come back to see our latest items (most recent at the top).
Trump's science vision, in a single graph
The budget released today is often scant on details, including how cuts to various science agencies will be distributed. But science budget expert Matt Hourihan of the R&D; Budget and Policy Program at AAAS (publisher of ScienceInsider) made some informed estimates of how the cuts would play out (assuming Congress approves all of the cuts, which is a big "if"). The result is this graph, which shows how select science agencies would fare:
NIH cuts could mean no new grants in 2018
The biomedical research community is reacting with shock and outrage to the Trump administration’s proposed 18% cut to the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Many are also worried about plans to reorganize the agency, in part by eliminating its institute dedicated to training scientists in developing countries.
The Trump budget would cut $5.8 billion from NIH’s current funding level of $31.7 billion in the stopgap congressional funding measure that funds most federal agencies through 28 April. That would bring its budget back to the lowest level in 15 years without taking into account biomedical inflation.
“Obviously we’re outraged. This is just unacceptable. This doesn’t make any sense. We should be investing more in biomedical research,” says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative relations for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. The Association of American Medical Colleges said the cuts would “cripple the nation’s ability to support and deliver” biomedical research.
The damage could even worse than it sounds because the $25.9 billion for NIH apparently includes $496 million that NIH was slated to receive from the 21st Century Cures Act that became law in December 2016, suggests Kathy Hudson of Washington, D.C., a former NIH deputy director who left the agency in December. Cures money was once envisioned as being an add-on to the agency’s budget, not a replacement for withdrawn funding. (The Cures money has a separate funding stream that is not subject to the annual appropriations process.) NIH would also have to dig into its budget to maintain studies funded by the $334 million (in 2016) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), whose activities NIH would be expected to absorb, Hudson says.
Across NIH, because most of the agency’s budget goes to annual payments for ongoing grants, a nearly 20% cut could leave virtually no funding for new awards in fiscal year 2018, Hudson says. “The nation would lose research and researchers in a way that would not be recoverable,” Hudson says. “It is pretty terrifying.”
The Trump budget proposal also “includes a major reorganization” of NIH’s 27 institutes and centers “to help focus resources on the highest priority research and training activities,” the document says. In addition to folding AHRQ into NIH, that includes “eliminating the Fogarty International Center” at NIH.
The Fogarty is a tiny piece of NIH, funded at $70 million in 2016. But it has an outsize impact because its mission is “entirely to train people” to do research mostly in low-income countries, says bioethicist Nancy Kass of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, a Fogarty grantee.
Although the Fogarty may have come into the White House’s crosshairs because of “international” in its title, the work it does helps guard the health of Americans from emerging diseases, Kass says. “One of the best protectants is to have people in Africa trained in science and ethics who can detect, measure, and do research on a new infection,” Kass says. “They are our first eyes and ears on the ground.” The Infectious Diseases Society of America issued a statement expressing “serious concerns” about the proposal to abolish the Fogarty center.
The Trump administration is not the first to propose an NIH reorganization—in the late 1990s, former NIH Director Harold Varmus decried its sprawling array of disease-oriented institutes and called for a more streamlined structure. A 2006 law caps the number of institutes at 27 and lays out a process for adding or removing institutes. That process entails “all sorts of lengthy, time-consuming, neuron-absorbing steps,” says Hudson, who was involved in creating a translational research institute (and dismantling another). Spending committees in Congress, which allocate individual institutes’ funding, would also have to sign off on any reorganization.
But Congress, where NIH has long had bipartisan support and received substantial raises the past 2 years, is unlikely to go along with the NIH proposal, NIH watchers say. “I don't think this has any chance of getting through Congress,” Zeitzer says. She adds that perhaps the White House budget office “did us a favor” by proposing massive cuts to NIH. “If it was a small cut, it would be hard to stay outraged.” — Jocelyn Kaiser
Nevada nuclear waste dump site gets $120 million reboot
The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump site in Nevada gets a $120 million reboot on licensing for the project in the White House’s 2018 budget blueprint for the U.S. Department of Energy.
The funding would be used to “initiate a robust interim storage program,” the request says, which would demonstrate how the Trump administration will address the country’s lack of repository sites, a hindrance for existing nuclear power plants.
A disposal site on Yucca Mountain would need to hold up to 77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste for up to 1 million years. A 2014 assessment from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission deemed the site environmentally safe to do so.
Billions of dollars have been spent to evaluate Yucca Mountain as disposal site for radioactive waste since the 1970s. Licensing was halted in 2010 by former President Barack Obama. The site has long faced pushback from state lawmakers, environmental groups, and local stakeholders.
The state of Nevada is officially opposed to a repository site on Yucca Mountain, according to the state’s attorney general’s office, citing “unresolved scientific issues,” space limitations, risks during transportation of waste, and national security vulnerability.
Nevada legislators from both parties fired back Thursday morning.
“As has been stated in the past, Yucca is dead and this reckless proposal will not revive it,” Senator Dean Heller (R–NV) said in a statement. “This project was ill-conceived from the beginning and has already flushed billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain.”
“This is unacceptable. Time and again, Nevadans have made it clear that we will not accept any plan to revive Yucca Mountain,” Senator Cortez Masto (D–NV), wrote in a Tweet.
The overall proposed budget for the Department of Energy took a 5.6% hit. Former Texas governor Rick Perry, the president’s energy secretary, remained cautious, but said he would not keep discussions of Yucca Mountain off the table at this senate hearing in January. — Rachael Lallensack
In mystery interior budget, USGS number came as surprise
The White House’s 2018 budget would take about 11.7% from the Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) 2016 enacted budget, dropping it from $13.2 billion to $11.6 billion. But that one number is the only concrete clue so far to the administration’s plans for DOI. Only DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received a loose estimate of its 2018 budget in the blueprint released today; USGS will receive “more than 900 million”—and even that amount may have been added at the 11th hour. “As of late yesterday afternoon we didn’t even think there was a dollar amount [in the budget request], so this was a bit of a surprise for us,” says USGS spokesperson A.B. Wade.
A $900 million budget, if it is that round number, would be a 15% decrease relative to USGS’s 2016 enacted budget of $1.062 billion. The 2018 request includes funding for the ground system for Landsat 9, the joint USGS-NASA satellite program to monitor land-use changes on Earth’s surface. Other USGS funding priorities, without dollar amounts attached, include natural hazard risk reduction and “responsible resource management.” However, there are currently six programs within USGS’ Natural Hazards Mission Area, focusing on risks from earthquakes to volcanoes. And “We’re not sure exactly what responsible resource management refers to specifically,” Wade says. Whether the cuts to USGS will include personnel is still unclear, she says, but “15% is a significant hit.”
For other agencies and programs within DOI, details are even scarcer. More than $1 billion will go to water resources management in the western United States—likely under the aegis of the Bureau of Reclamation. The DOI budget will support “stewardship capacity” for the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—but “streamlines operations.” Meanwhile, funding for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue will be sustained, the budget notes, and wildfire suppression costs, estimated based on a “10-year rolling average,” will be met in full.
One “lower priority” activity that will be cut is funding for new acquisitions of federal lands, an interest of multiple DOI agencies, including BLM, FWS, and NPS. The land acquisition budget stands to lose $120 million relative to 2016 enacted levels. Other programs on the chopping block include National Heritage Areas—many of which the White House says are more appropriately funded locally—and payments to the National Wildlife Refuge Fund that are “duplicative” of other payment programs.
Beyond that, the blueprint suggests the DOI priorities will include “environmentally responsible development of energy on public lands and offshore waters,” as well as streamlining permits and promoting energy. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, in a statement released today, expressed support for the budget—although 2 weeks ago he had told DOI employees that he would push back against the cuts. “I can say for certain that this budget allows the Interior Department to meet our core mission and also prioritizes the safety and security of the American people,” he said today. — Carolyn Gramling
National Endowment for the Humanities faces elimination
One of several organizations to have its funding eliminated completely in the 2018 budget proposal was the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). NEH, which was established in 1965 and received $148 million in 2016, provides grants supporting research, education, and outreach in the humanities and social sciences. In linguistics, for example, the Documenting Endangered Languages program, managed jointly by NEH and the National Science Foundation (NSF), has played a role in preserving and revitalizing many endangered languages.
William D. Adams, Chairman of NEH, released a statement earlier today on the agency's proposed elimination. Here are some excerpts:
We are greatly saddened to learn of this proposal for elimination, as NEH has made significant contributions to the public good over its 50-year history. But as an agency of the executive branch, we answer to the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Therefore, we must abide by this budget request as this initial stage of the federal budget process gets under way. …
Since its creation in 1965, NEH has established a significant record of achievement through its grant-making programs. Over these five decades, NEH has awarded more than $5.3 billion for humanities projects through more than 63,000 grants. That public investment has led to the creation of books, films, museum exhibits, and exciting discoveries. …
Through these projects and thousands of others, the National Endowment for the Humanities has inspired and supported what is best in America.
— Brice Russ
An ominously sparse FDA section
The White House has not specified the size of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) budget, but does propose a major increase in user fees, which are collected from drug and medical device companies submitting products for FDA review. The agency brought in roughly $1.3 billion—nearly a third of its budget—in medical product user fees last year.
Today’s proposal to increase those fees by $1 billion may not sound ominous in itself, but it implies an impending, equivalent cut to federal funding, says Steven Grossman, deputy executive director at the Alliance for a Stronger FDA in Washington, D.C. That’s an unrealistic expectation, he adds, because drug companies have already gone through negotiations and reached an agreement with FDA on user fee increases. (The agreed-upon number isn’t publicly available.)
The Biotech Industry Organization, also in Washington, D.C., addressed the potential shake-up in an e-mailed statement: “As regards to user fee programs, we look forward to working with the President and Congress to preserve the commitments reflected in the carefully negotiated [Prescription Drug User Fee Act] goals letter.” — Kelly Servick
Biomedical research coalition calls on Congress to block NIH cuts
United for Medical Research (UMR), a politically potent coalition of leading research universities, industry groups, and patient advocates based in Washington, D.C., isn’t happy with Trump’s proposed 20% cut to the $32 billion NIH, the nation's major funder of basic biomedical science. Here are excerpts from a statement issued by UMR President Lizbet Boroughs:
UMR is deeply troubled by the proposed $5.8 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH ) … A cut of such magnitude would have serious repercussions on medical research, jobs and the economy. It would stymie major progress toward treatment and cures of diseases, and be felt by all Americans …
NIH research fuels the pipeline of discovery and innovation necessary to prevent, treat and cure our most vexing diseases and it has a significant economic impact, supporting more than 350,000 jobs across the United States and contributing some $60 billion annually in economic activity ….
We call on the strong bipartisan Congressional supporters of NIH to reject the Administration’s drastic and unwise cuts to NIH and maintain a course of steady, sustained and predictable funding for America’s premier health agency.
NASA chief reacts: positive "overall"
NASA Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot has put out a statement reacting to the White House budget request, which calls for a 1% cut overall to his agency, and a 5% cut to NASA’s earth science programs. “This is a positive budget overall for NASA,” he said. A few excerpts:
The President mentioned in his speech to both houses of Congress that, ‘American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.’ NASA is already working toward that goal, and we look forward to exciting achievements that this budget will help us reach …
While the budget and appropriation process still has a long way to go, this budget enables us to continue our work with industry to enhance government capabilities, send humans deeper into space, continue our innovative aeronautics efforts and explore our universe …
The budget also bolsters our ongoing work to send humans deeper into space and the technologies that will require …
Overall science funding is stable, although some missions in development will not go forward and others will see increases. We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us—a budget not far from where we have been in recent years, and which enables our wide ranging science work on many fronts …
While this budget no longer funds a formal Office of Education, NASA will continue to inspire the next generation through our missions and channel education efforts in a more focused way through the robust portfolio of our Science Mission Directorate. We will also continue to use every opportunity to support the next generation through engagement in our missions and the many ways that our work encourages the public to discover more.
We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget. This doesn’t mean, however, that the hard work of the teams already working on ARM will be lost. We will continue the solar electric propulsion efforts benefitting from those developments for future in space transportation initiatives. I have had personal involvement with this team and their progress for the past few years, and am I extremely proud of their efforts to advance this mission …
NSF wonders whether budget's silence is golden
At first glance, the research components of today’s 2018 budget blueprint appear to reflect Trump’s lack of attention, to date, to science and the federal research enterprise. The best example may be the budget’s silence on NSF, the federal government’s major funder of several fields of academic research.
NSF is not mentioned in the 62-page document, so it’s impossible to know what the new president thinks about its broad $7.5 billion portfolio of research and education. Presumably, the agency is one component of a single line labeled “other agencies” that is scheduled for a 10% cut. But NSF never received a “landing team” from the incoming Trump administration and had no interactions with White House budget officials as the so-called skinny budget was assembled over the past few weeks.
NSF’s support for the social sciences and its environmental and climate programs have been the target of congressional Republicans. But despite deep cuts in these areas at other agencies, NSF’s activities so far have been spared.
So is silence golden? NSF officials may not know the answer until Trump submits his full 2018 budget request to Congress in May. — Jeffrey Mervis
NOAA Sea Grant programs leads list of cuts
A little-known grant program that supports academic research to help communities adapt to climate change and manage their coastal and lakeshore resources is on the chopping block in the Trump administration's budget proposal for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The elimination of the $73 million Sea Grant program would account for the single largest chunk of the $250 million the White House wants to cut from the $5.8 billion agency, which does everything from manage weather satellites to regulate fisheries.
Sea Grant, established by Congress in 1966, supports research at 33 centers, largely on the coasts but also on the Great Lakes, involving more than 3000 scientists and 300 academic institutions. Sea Grant has also emerged as an important venue for guiding communities on their response to global warming, including regional sea level rise.
Overall, the budget proposal would reduce NOAA’s budget by 4%. Beyond Sea Grant, the cuts would target grants and programs "supporting coastal and marine management, research, and education," which are a lower priority, the budget request states, than functions maintained in the budget like "surveys, charting, and fisheries management." But the budget does not make clear what specific programs these other cuts would target, and provides no numbers for influential programs like the Office of Atmospheric Research, NOAA’s main science arm.
The proposal would retain support for NOAA's troubled $11.3 billion Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), a series of two advanced weather satellites, the first of which is set for launch late this summer, and its $11.3 billion line of four new geostationary satellites, the first of which, GOES-16, launched late last year.
The fate of two further planned polar satellites, JPSS-3 and JPSS-4, remain uncertain in the proposal, which says NOAA will obtain cost savings in the program by "better reflecting the actual risk of a gap in polar satellite coverage," along with opening up more opportunities for startup commercial weather satellites to provide data. That is likely a reference to companies like Spire Global, which has launched a series of CubeSats to collect weather data by GPS radio occultation. Congress has already pressured NOAA to sign pilot contracts with these companies.
The proposal promises to maintain the forecasting capabilities of the National Weather Service by investing "more than $1 billion," potentially in line with the service's enacted $1.1 billion in spending for the 2016 financial year.
— Paul Voosen
Environmental think tank bashes EPA, State Department cuts
The World Resources Institute (WRI), a prominent Washington, D.C.–based environmental think tank, doesn't have much good to say about the proposed 31% cut to the Enviornmental Protection Agency, 29% cut to State Department climate and aid programs, and reductions at research agencies. Here is some of what WRI's Manish Bapna, a managing director at the group, said in a statement:
The latest budget continues the administration’s shocking disregard for priorities that are critical for people’s health and the economy. The U.S. government must have the resources to protect air, water and people’s health at home. It must also have the tools to advance U.S. diplomatic and strategic interests overseas.
By slashing funding for communities most in need, the administration risks jeopardizing America’s security in strategically critical parts of the world. Funding to the State Department and USAID are essential not only for people’s well-being but also for advancing U.S. priorities in conflict-prone and fragile regions. As we face one of the worst humanitarian crises since World War II, with nearly 20 million people at risk of starvation, this is no time to be turning our backs on the world.
The government should also invest in American innovation, especially to accelerate the clean energy revolution that is already reducing pollution and creating more domestic jobs.
The administration should respect science and continue to respond to the growing impacts of climate change, which is understood by the scientific and security communities alike. Human-caused climate change is already contributing to severe droughts and food shortages and accelerating the migration of people. Slashing climate and clean energy funds will undermine U.S. business and diplomatic interests and lead to greater security risks for us all.
It’s now up to Congress to restore funding, recognizing that America’s economic and security interests are intertwined with the well-being of people and the planet.
At NASA, a shift away from the home planet
Europa is still in the country's sights, but Earth a bit less so in the administration's new budget. Compared with other science agencies, NASA would fare well under the proposed budget, but a quartet of earth science missions would face elimination under the plan.
Overall, the budget requests $19.1 billion for NASA in the 2018 fiscal year, a 1% drop from its current levels—but that number is also larger than the request that the Obama administration made for 2017.
Earth science would face a cut of $102 million, to $1.8 billion, with three missions under preparation—and one currently in operation—canceled, along with an unspecified reduction in earth science research grants.
Notably, the Deep Space Climate Observatory, an active mission launched in 2015 to provide planetwide observations of Earth that has long ties to former Vice President Al Gore, would be terminated before its 5-year mission was up.
Also facing elimination are the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3, which would observe carbon dioxide flows; a mission to the space station that would have supported tests of a spectrometer intended to measure solar reflection; and Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem, a satellite that would measure the colors of the ocean to gauge the global flow of algae and the influence of ocean aerosols on cloud formation.
Planetary science would be boosted by 16% under the budget, to $1.9 billion, with explicit support for Europa Clipper, the agency's mission to make multiple flybys past Jupiter's icy moon, and the 2020 Mars rover. The budget would not support a separate mission to land on Europa, and also encourages the agency to support initiatives to explore the use of smaller, less expensive satellites for its science.
The budget maintains support for continued development of the Space Launch System, NASA's next-generation rocket set for launch in the next few years, and the Orion crew vehicle for human exploration. As expected, it seeks to cancel the Obama administration's Asteroid Redirect Mission, citing its expense, but offers no replacement near-term target for astronauts, such as the moon, or whether Mars remains its priority.
The budget also gives no hint of the administration’s view of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), a space-based infrared observatory set to target dark energy next decade. The James Webb Space Telescope, set for launch next year, has chewed up the budget of the astrophysics division, and there’s concern that WFIRST could do likewise.
The request also seeks to eliminate the $115 million Office of Education, opting for "a more focused education effort" through NASA's science directorate.
— Paul Voosen
Voices: reaction to the budget proposal
“Deeply troubled.” “Very concerned.” “Unprecedented.” “Unwise.”
Scientific societies, patient groups, and research organizations are reacting with alarm to the many cuts to science programs in President Donald Trump’s budget request. A sampling of voices:
"This budget proposal would cripple American innovation and economic growth," said a statement from Association of American Universities President Mary Sue Coleman, and would "lead to a U.S. innovation deficit, as it comes at a time when China and other economic competitors continue their investment surge in research and higher education."
“The magnitude of this reduction in funding [for NIH] is unprecedented and will slow scientific discovery against chronic and infectious diseases,” the American Society for Microbiology said in a statement. The group did give the White House some credit for funding the Department of Agriculture’s competitive research grants program, and said that “while we applaud” decisions to continue to fund The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, “the proposed elimination of the NIH’s Fogarty International Center would only serve to weaken public health in America by preventing vital scientific collaboration around the globe.”
The budget, “if enacted, would be a step backward for scientific progress, jeopardize the U.S.’s role as a leader in innovation, and harm the American public,” said Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union in Washington, D.C. “We are disheartened and significantly concerned by the … proposal, which clearly devalues science and research.”
“The President cites a lack of evidence as the reason for many of his budget cuts, which demonstrates a strong interest in ensuring federal policymaking relies on sound, science-based evidence,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America in Arlington, Virginia. “However, many programs that are valued by Americans, particularly those designed to protect the most vulnerable among us, are based on evidence and should be given the opportunity to prove their effectiveness.”
“Unfortunately, the Administration’s FY18 budget would erode the investment needed to maintain America's status as the global innovation leader, said Executive Director Stewart Young of the Task Force on American Innovation, a Washington, D.C.–based coalition of companies, university associations, and professional societies. “With the cuts to basic research offered in the FY18 budget, our nation risks creating an innovation deficit, which would diminish our ability to compete globally, to grow our economy, and to safeguard our nation.”
“There are certain investments the United States can’t afford to not make,” said Association of Public and Land-grant Universities President Peter McPherson in a lengthy statement. The Washington, D.C.–based group predicted the cuts would “severely negatively impact the lives of many Americans and blunt economic growth.”
The Arlington, Virginia–based National Science Teachers Association is “extremely disappointed with the education budget released this morning by the Trump Administration. … Eliminating Title II grants under the Every Students Succeeds Act (Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants) will mean the loss of content-rich professional development for thousands of science teachers nationwide who want to strengthen their content knowledge and classroom instruction.”
"The Trump administration’s proposed budget would cripple the science and technology enterprise through short-sighted cuts,” said Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS (publisher of ScienceInsider) in Washington, D.C. “Congress has a long bipartisan history of protecting research investments. We encourage Congress to act in the nation’s best interest and support sustainable funding for federal R&D;—for both defense and non-defense programs—as it works to address the FY 2018 budget."
“[W]e are grateful and encouraged that members of Congress have already spoken out about the importance of keeping NIH funding at healthy levels,” said David F. Arons, chief executive officer of the National Brain Tumor Society in Newton, Massachusetts, which was “disappointed” by the NIH cuts. “It would be a tremendous disappointment if we backed away now from all the gains that have been made and all those that are within reach."
“[T]he preliminary evidence suggests that the administration is taking its cues from a deeply flawed framework put forward by the Heritage Foundation,” wrote Joe Kennedy of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington, D.C. “It is proposing to slash federal investments in critical areas that contribute significantly to economic growth.”
“The unprecedented budget cuts proposed by President Trump for FY 2018 would cripple the nation’s ability to support and deliver the important biomedical research that provides hope to all,” said Association of American Medical Colleges President and CEO Darrell G. Kirch. “National security is a priority for us all, but it cannot be achieved without a commitment to the nation’s health security.”
Posted in: Science and Policy
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal0923
Science News Staff
Keep reading...Show less
The most-hated bear in solar isn’t backing down.
“Everybody hates me,” says New York-based analyst Gordon Johnson, acknowledging his reputation as solar’s notorious bear, a soundbite-ready contrarian among a group of analysts generally bullish on the industry’s long-term prospects.
When Elon Musk’s SolarCity hosted stock analysts about a year ago to gush about its prospects in the solar industry, Gordon Johnson was nowhere to be found.
It seems that Johnson, a 36-year-old analyst at boutique advisory shop Axiom Capital Management Inc., wasn’t invited. This may not have been an oversight; it happens to him a lot.
“Everybody hates me,” says the New York-based analyst in jest, acknowledging his reputation as solar’s notorious bear, a soundbite-ready contrarian among a group of analysts generally bullish on the industry’s long-term prospects. “Companies don’t like me because I have sell ratings on their stocks.”
Turns out Johnson was right about solar-panel company SolarCity, bought by Tesla Inc. last year. And SunEdison Inc., the now-bankrupt clean-energy giant, before that. He also forecast troubles for SunPower Corp. years before. His bearishness sometimes gets him in trouble, as when he once stayed negative too long on First Solar Inc.
But given his generally good track record, “People are inclined to listen,’’ says Michael Morosi, an analyst at Avondale Partners LLC in Nashville. “He’s pretty much two-for-two the last two cycles.”
These days, Johnson has a sell rating on every stock he follows (including some steel companies), and he has a fresh reason -- Donald Trump. Johnson figures the president, a renewables critic during the campaign, may attempt to revoke federal subsidies for solar -- a minority opinion, to be sure. “It would be a big negative for renewables, particularly solar,” Johnson says. Tax reform would also hurt.
Solar Returns
Investors may share this view. The Bloomberg Global Large Solar Energy index has dropped about 5.6 percent since Trump was elected, compared with a 9.8 percent gain in the broader S&P; 500 index.
A solar skeptic since his tenure at Lehman Brothers a decade ago, Johnson isn’t beloved among the companies he covers, not to mention other Wall Street solar analysts. Some observers view him merely as an ally of the hedge funds and other short-sellers that are his clients, and sometimes just lucky in playing what they call the solar-coaster.
“Research analysis is best done without a prevailing bias,” says Brad Meikle, an analyst at Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC in San Francisco. “It’s pretty clear that Gordon’s got a pretty negative view of the clean-energy space.”
Johnson dismisses talk that he is, as he puts it, similar to a broken clock that gets it right twice a day. “There’s no luck in making a short call,” he says. While most companies ignore his questions, SolarCity is among the exceptions, even if it didn’t invite him to a conference. His bearishness certainly doesn’t diminish his standing where he works, he says.
“My boss doesn’t care about my negativity,’’ says Johnson, who says he has about 400 clients, mostly hedge funds. “He just cares that I make commission.”
A spokeswoman for SolarCity declined to comment.
Media Profile
At 6-foot-1 inches, impeccably tailored and with J.J. Abrams-nerd glasses, Johnson has already carved out a media profile with frequent TV and radio appearances. It’s likely to grow further under Trump, who has claimed that climate change is a hoax created by China.
Johnson’s contrarian view derives from a simple thesis: solar, he says, can’t compete with, or replace, natural gas because it can’t provide around-the-clock power and because it has needed subsidies to be competitive.
Such reliance on subsidies -- and frequent changes in the size of the subsidies globally -- has helped create booms and busts for publicly traded solar companies despite the sector’s staggering growth. The amount of solar power capacity worldwide surged about 30 percent last year, and will grow by another 25 percent this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The U.S. rooftop solar industry grew 79 percent in 2015, according to New Energy Finance, and was expected to grow 21 percent last year.
Tepid Growth
Joseph Goodman, a principal at Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental research nonprofit, says the volatility of solar stocks will smooth out with continued growth and improving efficiencies.
“In the past two cycles, we didn’t see a lot of people buying solar because they were saving money,” he said. “Now we do.”
Most clean-energy analysts, while under no illusions that Trump will prolong Barack Obama’s support for solar, say the sector will sustain at least tepid growth. Solar’s tax credit, they say, is already scheduled to dwindle and congressional approval would be required to cut further.
Johnson went to Wall Street after graduating from historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he studied finance and economics. His first job was at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in 2002, where he was an investment banking analyst.
“Hated the hours then,” he says. “It was hard to date. There were some all-nighters.’’
Bear Approach
So he tried research, and joined Credit Suisse Group AG as a medical device analyst. He cycled through other shops, including Bear Stearns, before landing in 2006 at Lehman, where he initially focused on semiconductors.
In 2009, he moved to Hapoalim Securities where he initiated coverage –- downbeat -- on three leading solar companies, First Solar, SunPower and MEMC Electronic Materials Inc., the company that later became SunEdison.
“I saw an oversupply of polysilicon, which would drive costs lower,” Johnson recalls, referring to the main raw ingredient in solar cells. “I didn’t think demand was sufficient versus the supply. And that is exactly what happened.”
His job at Hapoalim didn’t end happily. He says First Solar disagreed with a research note, leading to his departure in 2010.
A spokesman for First Solar declined to comment. Bank Hapoalim officials couldn’t be reached for comment.
Johnson has had some painful setbacks. While in his usual bear mode, a tsunami struck Fukushima in 2011, prompting Japanese officials to consider using solar as a replacement for nuclear energy. Solar stocks promptly shot up.
SunEdison Story
He had another bad call when he began covering SunEdison again in 2015, recommending the stock near the top of the wave. But he was one of the first analysts to turn on the company after its July 2015 peak. It filed for bankruptcy last April with $16.1 billion in liabilities, the largest 2016 filing in the U.S.
“SunEdison was a very complex story," he says, a company that required ever-higher cash flows to stay afloat.
Johnson also asserted in April, when SolarCity was trading at almost $34, that the then-Wall Street darling was plagued by financial engineering and an unsustainable debt pile. Two months later, Musk’s Tesla announced it would buy his SolarCity, rescuing the solar installer from its own troubled balance sheet.
The deal closed in November. It valued the stock at less than $21.
Keep reading...Show less
The challenges of change: Diversification may prove difficult for Wyoming, experts say.
From alfalfa to cattle, tourism to plastic princesses, the desire to diversify has a long history in Wyoming, but the winning market has long been energy.
Before World War II, it was aviation. Planes heading from one coast to another needed a stopover, and Cheyenne was on the safest route across the Continental Divide. Boeing and American Airlines had offices there, and the first of the well-mannered, manicured and uniformed airline stewardesses were trained in Wyoming’s state capital.
Then the war came, bringing with it new technologies and better planes. The stopover in Cheyenne was left behind like an old railroad hub miles from a new interstate highway.
In the ‘70s, some said Wyoming could be home to the next big manufacturer of Barbie dolls. From alfalfa to cattle, tourism to plastic princesses, the desire to diversify has a long history in Wyoming, but the winning market has long been energy.
For all the effort — or at least, stated effort — to diversify Wyoming’s economy over the years, some say it just can’t be done.
Can it be done?
Colorado School of Mines professor Graham Davis said that if the Cowboy State was going to become a hub for non-extractive industries, that already would have happened.
“I can tell you there have been many, many regions and nations that have tried to diversify away from natural resources through planning exercises,” Davis said. “None have succeeded.”
He said Colorado, a state that moved from mining oil, coal and precious metals to boasting a variety of major industries including high-tech, did not take concerted steps to diversify its economy.
“It’s just market forces,” Davis said.
Denver, San Francisco and many other metropolitan centers in the United States were creations of gold rushes or other mining booms — essentially random events that can lead to a thriving region.
Wyoming’s borders were effectively drawn in the 1860s as an act of corporate welfare meant to subsidize the railroad.
Union Pacific was building the transcontinental railroad through southern Wyoming due to its relatively flat grade and easy access to coal deposits. But the region was part of the Dakota Territory at the time, with a Legislature based hundreds of miles away in Yankton, adjacent to Iowa.
“We set up a government here because the Union Pacific railroad needed a government that was closer than Yankton,” said University of Wyoming economics professor Anne Alexander.
“This was the first place that they made a state for a corporation,” Alexander said.
Even then, businessmen in Wyoming were facing the same problem that the state faces today: how to draw people and businesses to the state and how to sell what Wyoming had, said Gov. Matt Mead.
Unlike Colorado and other states that were created around clear economic hubs, Wyoming had to find its own way toward financial viability.
The coal deposits were seen primarily as fuel for the railroads and would not find a major national market until the 1980s. Oil grew in importance as automobiles became popular in the early 20th century. Agriculture and tourism, meanwhile, had always been around.
The main sources of lucrative, blue-collar jobs in Wyoming have long been natural resources. No other industry has come close.
“Market forces say productive activities go where it’s most profitable to do so,” Davis said.
And, Davis added, those forces have not brought much to Wyoming other than extractive industries — and it is unlikely the government can do anything about that.
Mead differs on that point.
“It’s always a combination of ‘We have wonderful assets — how do we maximize those?’” he said. “We can no longer sit and wait and hope for the world market to give us that place. We have to grab what we have and make our own better days.”
More, better energy
In the current bust, the call to diversify has a hint of panic. The challenge is one of awareness in some cases.
“How do we make the world know that we are open for business?” Mead said.
Wyoming could again look to fossil fuels as a way to grow the economy, but with an eye to the future, he said.
Though oil, gas and coal face enormous pressure because of worldwide concern about carbon dioxide and methane emissions, those sources are still valuable.
Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources at UW was created to look at some of these new possibilities.
Mead and the state Legislature invested millions in a cost-share with the industry for the Wyoming Integrated Testing Center, which broke ground last year. Using the Dry Fork Station coal-fired power plant as a guinea pig, the center will host competitions and research into carbon capture technology, or how to grab carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal.
Others see carbon capture as a small part of what research can do for Wyoming’s existing energy sources — research that could move oil, gas and coal away from the turbulent supply and demand of the electricity and fuel markets, said Rob Godby, director of the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming.
“If we really want to see value in our coal resource, Dry Fork is a step,” Godby said. “But I think a lot of people are coming around to the opinion that really we should be thinking about coal as an alternative hydrocarbon source.”
Coal can be used in carbon fiber structure — considered the future of construction materials as fewer builders use steel.
Much of industry supports this idea of added value.
“Gas is such a cool molecule, it shouldn’t be wasted on electrical power,” said Cary Brus, senior vice president for Nerd Gas. “You can do so much stuff with gas … You can use it for all kinds of other raw materials, plastics, all these things that we take for granted every day.”
Better use of commodities is the way of the future, Godby said. However, though that’s more accessible than a booming tech industry in Cody or Casper, it still doesn’t solve Wyoming’s economic diversification dilemma.
Wyoming can’t just supply coal and gas to other states where they are refined and used. Those refineries, those industries and that new workforce need to be located here, he said.
Some smaller firms offer a model for how businesses outside the energy industry could thrive in Wyoming. McGinley Orthopaedic Innovations, a medical device manufacturer in Glenrock, has hired roughly two dozen workers. Their ranks include machinists, welders and others who once made their living in the energy sector.
But the scale of those efforts, which provide stable employment, still pale in comparison to the economic engine that is Wyoming’s extractive industry. And in that sense, Wyoming remains where it started, a geographically remote market with a small workforce that is dependent on energy production, Godby said.
A universal challenge
Alaska, another state where jobs and tax revenue depend primarily on energy, has likewise struggled to diversify.
Pause
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:00
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00
Fullscreen
00:00
Mute
Clive Thomas, a longtime economist of the state who now teaches at Washington State University, said Wyoming and Alaska have much in common and will both likely continue to flounder in efforts to attract other high-paying industries.
“Alaskan politicians, especially those who have never taken a politics class, think that somehow if they have the right policies — and get rid of this government or that government — that Alaska can diversify its economy,” Thomas said. “It can never do that.”
Thomas addressed the attempts to draw technology startups to the state, an effort that has also been pushed by business development groups in Cheyenne.
“Who’s going to move from San Francisco to Anchorage, which is a pit hole?” Thomas said. “Who would want to do that?”
Like Davis, the Colorado School of Mines professor, Thomas said that it was unlikely that government alone would be able to convince businesses that special opportunities existed in their states.
“Investors would have found them,” Thomas said.
He said that states across the Mountain West had been unsuccessfully seeking to develop economies to compete with places like California and New York for decades.
“If there was a way to do it, people would have figured it out,” he said.
Thomas and Davis both take a more skeptical approach toward the need for economic diversification, saying that Wyoming’s population is free to move in and out of the state depending on conditions in the energy industry.
It might hurt Wyoming if a worker relocates from Casper to Denver or, say, Philadelphia for a higher-paying job, but Davis noted that from an economic perspective, that would be seen as a positive move for the country.
“It’s good if someone can find a good-paying job on the East Coast; they should go for it,” Davis said. “We don’t see that as misery.”
Wyoming, however, does.
Why diversify?
Even economists who believe in the need for diversification emphasize the importance of figuring out the end goal of changing the economy.
“You have to be reasonably clear on why you want economic diversification, because that, to some degree, answers the question,” said Center for Global Development fellow Alan Gelb, who works with overseas countries looking to move away from dependence on natural resources.
Some countries are worried about job creation; others are concerned that too much of their budgets are tied up in commodities with wildly fluctuating prices.
He said that Botswana, a diamond-exporting country near the southern tip of Africa, has many similarities to Wyoming: It has a small population spread across a large territory, it’s home to relatively few people with advanced college degrees, its semi-arid climate makes agriculture difficult and it is forced to compete against neighboring countries with better infrastructure and more established economies.
Despite the government’s best efforts, diamond mining continues to dominate the economy in Botswana.
“In a case like that, there is a real question as to what else the economy can do,” Gelb said.
His answer — and the one adopted by some countries that have realized they will never be able to offer a variety of good-paying jobs — is to invest in human capital.
“Make sure your people can earn their livings anywhere in the world,” Gelb said.
Wyoming already invests heavily in its education system and it is easy for a University of Wyoming graduate to move elsewhere in the United States for work.
The state’s challenge is keeping young people in the state after school. About 60 percent move elsewhere, Mead said.
Alexander, the University of Wyoming economist, said the state also needs a more stable economy if it hopes to keep the social contract that governments enter into with citizens.
“The government is supposed to not just dictate our lives but provide us with services,” she said. “People like the cops to come when they’re called. They like the fire department to come. They probably want a reasonable transportation system.”
That all costs money. And even if residents can settle in and leave Wyoming depending on the number of energy jobs, it costs roughly the same amount of money to provide a police force for a city of 50,000 people as it does for 40,000 people. The roads between Cheyenne and Casper need to be maintained at basically the same level even if 25 percent of Wyoming’s population leaves during an energy downturn.
“These are all things that are really difficult to provide if you don’t have predictable revenue flow,” Alexander said.
Alexander said that not only is steady revenue necessary to provide stability during periods of industry downturns, but a diverse economy is also needed to ensure Wyoming’s economy can grow outside of the wild booms that tax the state’s infrastructure and social services.
That’s important because if Wyoming hopes to retain its young people, it needs to offer them compelling careers, something that is only possible if it branches beyond extractive industries.
Gov. Mead said that many Wyomingites see it differently. Rather that a state without a solid economic base that struggles to retain its young population, they see one of rich natural resources, wide vistas and a high quality of life. People from Wyoming, and people who migrate to Wyoming, do so because of the quality of life.
“We could just sit back — fine — and the only people who will remain here will be the people who really want to be here,” Alexander said.
But if Wyoming simply accepts that its population will fluctuate with the whims of the energy industry, Alexander said the holdouts who remain in the state will be required to either bear a higher tax burden or make due with government services far below what their peers receive elsewhere in the United States.
“There’s only so long you can ask people to do that,” she said.
“The best and the brightest and most talented who might have grown up in your backyard in Hanna or Worland or Meeteetse (will) have no incentive to stay here and that puts you in a death spiral.”
Alexander did not dispute that Wyoming’s small population, lack of a large metropolitan center and relative isolation made it difficult to diversify the economy. But she said that doing so was still possible.
“We have to look really carefully at what we have,” Alexander said. She cited Wyoming’s small-scale manufacturing and agriculture products industry as source of skilled labor.
Alexander also praised Gov. Matt Mead’s proposed ENDOW program, which would offer job training and other incentives to create a more skilled workforce.
The governor has asked the Legislature to fund $2.5 million for the initiative. More than half will go to community colleges.
If lawmakers were to refuse the funding, the 20-year project would go on, but be severely crippled, said Jerimiah Rieman, the governor’s director of economic diversification strategy and initiatives.
“There are challenges, big ones, massive ones,” Alexander acknowledged. “But you eat the elephant one bit at a time.”
Thirty years in Wyoming energy
1970 - The Environmental Protection Agency is formed and the Clean Air Act passed. The legislation to combat air pollution puts pressure on Appalachian coal producers, but opens the door for Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal to flourish. Wyoming coal is of lesser quality, but significantly cleaner when burned than its eastern cousin.
1979 - Energy crises. After the Iranian Revolution, widespread panic over falling oil supply shocks the market. Price of crude soars.
1986- The high crude price in the early 80s dropped with a resounding boom. Price of oil hits $10 a barrel, around $20 a barrel in todays dollars.
1990 - Irag's invasion of Kuwait briefly spikes price of crude. Kuwaiti oil fields set on fire by Iraqi forces. Most of the 90s are a revenue dry spell for Wyoming, with poor to modest oil, gas and coal prices.
Late 90s - Two laid off oilmen discover coal bed methane, which would lead to a sudden burst in natural gas production in the Powder River Basin, including some 24,000 newly drilled wells.
2000s - New fracking and horizontal drilling techniques unlock gas fields across the country, spiking the shale revolution and a natural gas frenzy in Wyoming. State revenue from natural gas approaches $800 million far outpacing oil and coal.
2015 - The meteoric rise in U.S. oil production helps flood the market. Prices decline rapidly. Natural gas prices continue a downturn that began after a mid 2000 peak with gas surplus nationwide. Coal producers in Wyoming, saddled with debt from bad bets on Asian demand for coal, begin filing for bankruptcy.
2016- OPEC reaches a deal to curb production. Oil price steadies out in a $50 to $60 range. Gas price stabilizes at around $3 on winter demand. Two of three Powder River Basin coal companies to file for bankruptcy, emerge shorn of heavy debt.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
